The Way I C It 7.15.08: Vince McMahon’s Bias

Posted by Chris Lansdell on 07.15.2008

Is Vince’s bias just good business?

It has long been said that Vince McMahon is more than a little biased, in more than one way. He likes the big men. He likes the bodybuilders. It's even been alleged that he is not terribly fond on minorities. Perhaps just as worrying is the idea that he has a real issue pushing people he didn't create.

Oh sure, there have been a few who have held World titles. But when you break it down, since 1998 only two wrestlers who made their names outside the WWE have held the WWE Title (the one now on Smackdown), and you could argue that one was greatly improved by their WWE run. Here are the holders of the WWE Championship since 1998:

Shawn Michaels only once, amazingly; The Undertaker twice; Stone Cold Steve Austin 6 times; Kane once; The Rock 7 times; Mankind 3 times; Triple H 6 times; Vince McMahon once, unfortunately; Big Show twice; Kurt Angle 4 times; Chris Jericho once, criminally; Hulk Hogan once; Brock Lesnar 3 times; Eddie Guerrero once; JBL once; John Cena 3 times, although one was for over a year; Edge twice; Rob Van Dam once and Randy Orton twice.

Of that list only Big Show and RVD were main eventers outside WWF/E before they came over, and a case could be made that a main eventer in ECW means very little on the grand scheme of things. Big Show is interesting in that he shows that one of Vince's biases (towards big guys) overrules the other (towards talent he did not make). Chris Jericho was mad over before jumping ship, but never made it to more than the midcard. To a lesser extent, this applies to Eddie Guerrero. Although Steve Austin had a decent run in both WCW and ECW, very few people would argue that WWF made him. Same goes for Mankind. You may also note that there are two minorities on this list (one half-black half-Samoan and one Mexican). Compare this list with the list of holders of the World Championship since the Invasion, when it became a part of WWE television:

Booker T twice; Kurt Angle once; The Rock once; Chris Jericho once, at which point the belts were unified until September 2002; the belt was reinstated and awarded to Triple H, who held it 5 times; Shawn Michaels once;
Goldberg once; Chris Benoit once; Randy Orton once; Batista three times; Kurt Angle once more; Rey Misterio once; King Booker/Booker T once more; Undertaker twice; Edge 3 times; The Great Khali once and now CM Punk.

So on this list, you have Booker, Goldberg and Chris Benoit who were all former WCW champions and were therefore not made by Vince. You have a black man, a half-black half-Samoan, a Mexican, an Indian and a Pinoy (5 minorities), as well as 4 people (HBK, Benoit, Rey and Punk) who would qualify as cruiserweights.

Looking at the two histories, it certainly appears that the World title is the one that has the champions who are considered a risk (Rey, Khali, Punk), the guys who were given a title to keep them happy (Goldberg, Booker) and the guys who took it from them. Part of the reason for this is that the championship seems cursed: it has been vacated due to injury several times, necessitating a quick fix. In my opinion, there's more to it.

The Way I See It, Vince McMahon still considers the WWE Championship to be "his title": the one he made, the one that made him successful. The World championship he sees as the WCW title still, and he is less concerned about who holds it. For him to "sully" the legacy of "his belt" by having someone hold it who he didn't build is unthinkable, so he shunts the Big Gold Belt from show to show, depending on whom he wants to be champion. He also seems to take it as an affront that "their" former champion is better than "his" champion, as if wrestling is real in his mind, and the competition still exists even after WCW is no more and he has won.

Even getting a push and a title shot is tough if Vince didn't make you. People like Vader, Scott Steiner (the second time around), Lex Luger, Curt Hennig and Ron Simmons (who as a minority who was a champion elsewhere was DOUBLE SCREWED) were one-and-done contenders for the WWF/E title. When you consider that this list includes a chiselled guy like Steiner and a mountain like Vader, it just goes to show that sometimes Vince doesn't even follow his own order of bias.

Need more? Go back even further. Aside from Pedro Morales, what other visible minority wrestlers have held the WWF title? Yokozuna falls under the "big man trumps minority" category. In a similar vein, how many stars from other promotions have held the WWF title? Well, let's see…there's Ric Flair and Sergeant Slaughter. Yes yes, I know there's also Sid, but once again he's a big man and that overrules being made elsewhere. People like Mean Mark Callous, the Dingo Warrior, Vinnie Vegas/Oz, Terra Ryzing and Sexton Hardcastle were made into household names by Vince McMahon and therefore they were allowed to hold his belt.

In contrast, look at companies like WCW and TNA. It often seems like all you have to do is leave WWE and you are guaranteed a title run elsewhere. A lot of people have blamed this on an inability to make stars, but the likes of Sting, Lex Luger, Goldberg, Vader, Sid, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe and Ron Killings suggest otherwise. Of course, WCW is out of business and TNA is struggling for ratings, so you might argue that Vince's bias is actually just good business.

Is it though? Sure, Vince is the undisputed King of Sports Entertainment right now. However, that's in spite of his bias, not because of it. The demise of WCW was more due to bad booking decisions and inconsistent management, as well as Stone Cold, The Rock and DX. TNA came into a market where WWE was already an established dominant force, and they have yet to do anything that will lure viewers from WWE while retaining their own. Vince's refusal to give title reigns to minorities or non-home-grown talent is not the reason. Neither is his propensity to give the title to large gentlemen with no other distinguishing characteristics.

I'm sure a psychologist somewhere could write a litany of reasons that Vince feels this way. Vince is nothing if not a genius marketing man. He knows that the people who buy his merchandise and put the money in his pockets are not the Internet fans, but rather the casual fan with children and a good job. These are the people who are impressed by the Great Khalis and Batistas of the world, and have a hard job buying the Jamie Nobles and Paul Londons as anything more than plucky underdogs with flashy moves. If TNA pre-Russo has taught us anything, it is that marketing to smarks and workrate fans will not get you out of the 1.nothings for ratings. They have tried to turn that around recently with more sports entertainment stuff, but a combination of bad ideas and too little, too late has so far stymied that effort. Ring of Honor know that they cannot be a national force with the product they have, but rather than try and change it to become one, they have settled for being profitable with what they have and strengthening it. McMahon, on the other hand, understands what people want to see. They want evil monster heels and persevering faces who triumph in the face of seemingly impossible odds. So that's what he gives us.

With that in mind, Vince has the power to change people's preferences, and is unique in his ability to do so. Perceptive viewers will notice a gradual shift in the on-air product over the last couple of months, moving away from mammoth, veteran champions to younger, more athletic ones. The more cynical among the IWC have pointed to the numerous steroid scandals as the reason for this, and they are very likely right to an extent. Part of it is also the simple fact that it's easier to find non-gargantuan talent. There just aren't that many 6'6" bodybuilders who WANT to wrestle. Another part, though, is that Vince is once again enjoying the control he has over the wrestling world, and is changing what people want to see by telling them what and who is good. This points to another trait of Vince McMahon – If I can mess with the smarks, all biases fly out of the window. Writers like me and my 411 colleagues have tried to predict Vince's booking based on his "established" preferences on more than one occasion, only to be left scratching our heads when he does the opposite.

In summary, it's easy to blame Vince's bias for the prevalence of big men with little to no talent in the WWE who seem to get push after push and also to hold down the smaller, more talented guys on the roster. In reality, the average wrestling fan has to take much of the blame. Like any smart businessman, Vince puts out the product that people want to see. It's only now, with ratings flagging and criticism pouring in, that he is starting to change the product. It can be seen as something of a vindication that the ratings have started to turn around since the change.

Today's lesson, kiddies? Bias gets you nowhere.

Lansdellicious – Out.